reddit's stories are created by its users

join the community, vote, and change the world.

I don't think that's the case. Having a perception of what the color is outside of the picture doesn't really make sense. I thought the "debate" were people saying what they were seeing it as, and some few people refusing to think it could be seen any other way.

Also, as to your edit, white can be any color. Really, white is only pure white, but normally we see it in some sort of colored light, or the fabric is slightly discolored. So anything that's not pure white can be called light-yellow, light-blue or light-gray. Like the picture with the white shirt I linked, it is very natural to assume something is white even though it's discolored. I'd say white can be any color more so than black can.

As for the white, someone posted this elsewhere. Its an example of an actual white shirt with blue shadow, which is apparently bluer(#5779A1) in the picture than the dress is. It's all about perception. And also contrast and color settings of your monitor.

I didn't really mind much. I mean, slashing him 50 times with a machete wouldn't have been much better imo. I had done plenty of that already.

I was disappointing that the world stopped responding to me right after though. Like, there were still important things to do and people to talk to story wise but it just... ended. No acknowledgement at all.

Interesting article, but it looks like it's kind of basing its conclusion (that there is little bias in family court) on the fact that fathers are less likely to want custody, and its final conclusion seems divorced (no pun intended) from the statistics it uses.

If we look at their source we can see that though it's certainly true that more mothers want custody, it is still about an even three way split as to what fathers want. 35% want joint custody, 33% want sole possession and 29% want the mother to have sole custody.

If we compare that to the results, it seems there could be a bias in favor of women. Trials end up at 44% for women and 11% for men.

That doesn't mean there is an actual bias though. Perhaps women are just better suited in a larger number of cases, but the article doesn't really disprove much, imo.

In Sweden all journalists are subject to a set of rules, which includes ethics. As part of that no victims, accused or witnesses are to be identified.

The headlines are always along the lines of: "A 28-year-old man was arrested on charges of X in CITY yesterday".

That is not a law though, but something that the organisations themselves have agreed to and thus allow for exceptions in extraordinary cases. (I assume you'd be blacklisted if you went against those rules)

Imagine the person standing beside the open car door, hand inside the car to turn off the light, pull daughter outside, find glasses, any kind of stuff. Not inside the car. Also this IS the alternative to shooting for the torso. It's always better to only have a chance to hit than to actually be sure to hit it.

I actually agree there should be times the police should be able to shoot at the legs, instead of torso. However, in that example, shooting at the legs really does nothing. If the person is reaching for a gun he will still be able to fire at the cop (he might even still be able to lunge with a knife). Especially if the cop is focusing and trying to aim at his leg. A taser would be a better alternative, if possible.

Yes, the choice is literally whether to have surgery or not, but that's not all and everything.

That does not mean the choice to be a parent or not is not there. Both are true. Like you and your friend both have the option to go to a show, but you live within walking distance and he has to drive for an hour. Should you not get to choose to go on your own because he has to drive? Because his choice is literally to drive or not (but the choice to go the show or not is still there), similar to this.

Unless you are saying people do not choose abortion because they don't want or feel ready to have a child, and purely does it to avoid the 9 months pregnancy. Even if that was true, the choice is still there, whether you use it or not.

Outside of the monetary argument, the mans choice does not impact hers in the least. Should the man really be punished because of the realities of her need for surgery? You would never do that in other situations.

Because again. The choice I am talking about there, whether she has to have surgery or not.

There is literally no point in talking about it in the abstract unless you are talking about a law that applies universally, which you are.

There very much is, if you are trying to find out where you differ in ideology and for the reasons of making your stance clearer. But thanks for answering.

The whole point is that becoming a parent is not a choice - it's a biological reality.

But with the invention and possibility of abortion it does become a choice. It is a choice.

The choice to have a surgery or not is not the same as the choice to sign a piece of paper or not. So "they should both get the same choice" is precisely what I am arguing for, and you are arguing against. They should both get the choice to sign a piece of paper, or neither one of them should.

See, that's were we disagree. In my opinion it is the choice itself that is most important. Removing the choice, for one of them, because everything surrounding it can't be equal sound like it makes it less fair. For example, they very much can both sign a paper that decides if they want to have the child or not, what follows is outside of their choice. That is the part that is equal, obviously the biology is not.

Because the woman does, if she has access to abortion, get the choice to not have the child. She does not get the choice of how to achieve that (unfortunately), but she still very much has the choice itself. It seems like you are saying that because she goes through more than the man, his choice must be removed and that abortion is not in any way a choice for the woman.

If the man had surgery, the exact same but useless surgery, in parallel to the woman, would that make it okay?

You're comfortable saying women are "limited by their nature" in how much choice they have about becoming a parent, but not that men are - if men's biology limits their choice, the law has to remedy that, but not women's biology.

Of course I'm comfortable saying men are limited by their nature. They can't have a biological child unless someone else wants to provide that for them. Should the law remedy that? Should no gender be able to have children on their own unless all can?

The difference is that with your solution, the child bears the brunt of the consequence, women are treated as bodies rather than as persons, and you are giving people different rights according to their gender. It's legally indefensible as well as morally bankrupt.

No. Woman are and would be treated as people who get to choose, and men would be treated as people who get to choose. We could give the man pills and surgery to simulate the same things as the woman goes through, so that it's equal, if that makes it better?

Again, I'm putting emphasis on the choice itself.

There are biological differences, but can not both get the same choice unless they go through the exact same consequences for it?

Even if the woman goes through with having the child. She will have to go through 9 months of pregnancy, not to mention child birth. Is it not equally unfair that those differences in gender exist? Different rights according to gender, like you put it?

I'm not. I'm talking about "ought to". Morality outside of current law is very important to that decision.

So again, what would be your answer to that hypothetical? And do men and women have any moral responsibility to become parents as a result of sex?

You're saying that men must be able to choose to be parents with their minds, but women have to choose with their bodies.

Yes. I'm saying they should both be able to choose with their minds, the woman's expressed desire means everything in terms of having a child or not. What limits her is nature, the woman unfortunately must have an abortion if she does not and even if she chooses to have the child she must go through 9 months of pregnancy. If that was not so that would be better.

However, I think it's better it they both get the same choice, even if their realities differ.

Should the man not get that choice simply because the woman must have surgery, or go through pregnancy?

Because if the law sees motherhood as starting during pregnancy (which would be required for a woman to only be able to choose whether to be a mother or not during pregnancy),abortion is illegal!

What? There's no reason that means motherhood should start at pregnancy and abortion should be illegal. I'm not sure what you mean, but today a woman is able to choose whether to be a mother during pregnancy, but can still legally have an abortion.

The law can't tell you for what reason you have an abortion. It can't say "you had an abortion to choose not to be a parent" and it can't say "you didn't have an abortion because you chose to be a parent." Women have abortions for all sorts of reasons, but there is only ONE reason it is legal, and that is the right to have any surgery for reasons that are entirely private and inaccessible to the state.

Yes, but I'm asking for the underlying moral reasons rather than legal ones. As you say, bodily anatomy is the only necessary reason, but I'm asking if you think it would be okay, strictly morally, to consider reasons completely separate from bodily anatomy for the mother.

In my example with magical pregnancy-less birth, what would be your answer? I ask because of the point some people make about it being a responsibility of the father to have a child simply as a consequence of sex.

There are as many women who have children who did not want them as there are men who have children and didn't want them. That is true regardless of access to abortion. It's simply absurd to say that once a woman has a child, the man gets to choose whether to be a father but the woman does not have the right to choose whether to be a mother, because of her female biology.

You're right, that would be absurd. I would think the man would get the same time to decide, and would probably have to sign something as a part of the first consultation with a doctor to waive his rights as a father. Unless he can show to have a very good reason not to have been aware.

You're talking about the creation of an entirely new right that does not exist for women or men: the right to unilaterally choose not to be a parent. Abortion is not that. But you're proposing giving that right only to men. Either you give it to everyone, or you give it to no one.

It would absolutely not work if the father got to wait until after the birth, or legal limit on abortion. What I'm suggesting is he can make the choice when and if the woman has access to abortion.

Obviously she is pregnant and he is not, but that part he should absolutely have to pay for, and help if possible. Actually, the entire pregnancy.

Once a child legally exists, the law cannot treat the mother differently from the father just because "well, she could have had an abortion if she wanted to, so she's already used up her right to choose to be a parent or not." That's not how rights work and it's definitely not how this particular right works.

Why not? She has had the choice, so why should he have had the same choice at that time? Are you making a difference between wanting to be a parent and going through with the pregnancy? It just ends up as her being a single mother. Lots of women have children through insemination. I don't think there is anything wrong with that or that the child is loosing something it has a right to because of that mother's choice.

That is unless she didn't have the choice or access to the option of abortion. I definitely agree both or none should be responsible in that case.

The right to have an abortion is literally just the right to have any surgery or medical procedure (for whatever private reason you like), not the right to choose not to be a parent.

I guess I don't see it as a completely bodily issue. By necessity, the woman must be able to choose by herself, since it is her body. That said, I think it is completely reasonable and morally permissible for her to choose aborting for reasons completely different from bodily anatomy.

Like, in the made up magical world where babies pop into existence without invading either the woman's or man's bodies, I would still think it completely reasonable for the woman to choose not to have the child, and abort it before it pops into existence. I don't think there is a trace of responsibility for either her or him to go through with the pregnancy.

That coupled with the fact that I have nothing at all against pre-planned single mothers taking care of a child makes me see it as nothing lost. We just go from two parent to one, and no one dodged their responsibilities as far as I am concerned. I find the attitude that sex must mean a responsibility to be parents, and that is only offset because it's overshadowed by bodily anatomy, quite archaic.

I fully recognize that it serves a purpose, and does fix a problem in some instances.

What I'm saying is that I disagree with holding one need, or possible right, hostage for the benefit of another. Especially when there is another alternative that actually would fix the problem.

And no, it's not that they would have to raise their taxes so that parents can decide to opt out, it's that they have already shown not to be willing to raise taxes for all children's benefit. As someone from a arguably more socialist country, that makes the argument that "it's for the sake of the children" ring false to me. Clearly it is not, or it is only in this one specific circumstance.

My stance would be that it's best to fix every problem on it's own, or argue whether it is a problem in itself, or you'll keep running into reasons to never change the system.

Also, no. That is not the system I am suggesting, if it would be twisted into that it would be quite different.

Isn't it a very poor solution in that case? Surely not all single mother without a father live in a poor house hold? What about all the other children, with both or none of their parents, who live in poverty? And the fathers or mothers who are not able to pay, or die?

Surely the much better and only proper solution would be to pay, out of taxes, all households who fall under a certain threshold, to ensure the children's rights to necessities of life?

Ignoring what may be, if you agree to that, another persons rights and "sacrificing" them to badly solve a small amount of a bigger problem seems like the wrong solution and kind of disingenuous as an argument.

That evening, I thawed my feet in my hotel and watched the late Barbara Frum, one of Canada’s most respected journalists, refuse to admit that the massacre was indeed an act of violence toward women.

...

Frum was puzzled that so many women insisted the massacre was a result of a society that tolerates violence against women.

I guess the first question is what you mean by it being an act of violence against women.

Did he intend to target women, and specifically feminists? Yes, from what I can read it's pretty clear that he did.

Was his actions a result of a sexist society, and does that society or culture bear some responsibility? That's a harder question and not one that necessarily denies his personal sexism, but it feels like people are mixing up these two very different questions.

Take Breivik and his awful attack in Norway 2011. He very clearly stated that he was going after the "leftists" and attacked the Labour party's youth camp. Still, the overwhelming response was to denounce his actions as that of a mentally unstable person. His deeds were too extreme for people to feel that it was fair to connect his actions to any beliefs held by the right.

Could it be the same in this case? Was he more insane than he was influenced by anti-feminist culture? Or was it both? In that case how much of it was the "fault" of a specific subculture, or society at large?

I don't know the answer to those questions, but I think it might be fair to ask them and though it could be, it is not necessarily downplaying his motives.

That's true. I'd almost call it a well known fact that you get stopped more often etc if you're black. However, I think what /u/frawq is getting at, and what is more tangible and easier to rectify/punish than racism, is what happens after the cops "messed up". At that point it is likely the only color that matters is blue.